We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Hillary's generally odd wardrobe choices do raise questions about what obstacles her handlers have to work around.

Aside from the obvious reason that her team likely doesn't feel a need to campaign in LA, it also means that she can avoid the expected walkabout meet-n-greet. I don't think anybody would expect her to tote boxes off a truck but an SUV drive-by would certainly raise questions (in people's minds though of course not from the in-the-tank media) about why the queen didn't step down from her carriage.

I think you're on to something. I assumed that she didn't go to Louisiana because she just doesn't care about those people - I still think that - but there is no reason big enough to wear the wool tents she wears in the heat and humidity in Louisiana. Better just to avoid the whole place.

The press doesn't care about those people either so they don't care who goes down there or not.

The federal government would do the country a great service if we simply maintained the very expensive subsidy to corn farmers and ethanol makers but simply gave the corn to Africa and other 3rd world countries instead of making ethanol to destroy our vehicles and decrease our gas mileage. The corn to ethanol scam is bad for food prices, bad for automobiles, bad for the environment and bad for most Americans. And yet it continues and must be expanded. What would be different if the EPA, our government and environmentalists hated us?

Well of course you are correct. What I intended and didn't quite say was to give it to those people who are starving to death and I reflexly shortened that to African's. I would also accept that any giving away of the corn EVEN to starving people will have unexpected consequences but my larger point was simply that we, Americans, would be better off giving it away than turning it into ethanol.

Perhaps we could use it to make moonshine and give that to Africans. No! Scratch that idea.

The whole ethanol scam has seriously raised the price of corn in North and Central America, and corn is the basic food of the poor in Mexico and regions south. Remove the requirement for corn-based ethanol, and let the price of corn revert to its proper level. This will help the poor more than any of the pseudo-green addition of ethanol to fuel will. As a friend says, "I refuse to fuel my vehicle with people's food".

I guess we shouldn't be too bothered by the fact that our Secretary of State was selling access and favors for her own benefit. After all, that's the only thing at which she was successful for her entire tenure in the government.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president...

Don't be mean to Hillary! She just wants a chance to do to the rest of the country what the Democrats have done to Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis, LA, Oakland, Memphis, Washington, Philly, Cleveland, Buffalo and California. Give her a chance to finish their work.

She wasn't a politician. She was the Secretary of State, and in terms of seniority, fourth in line to succession to the presidency. As a federal official, she was barred by a number of statutes from doing this, e.g.:
----------------------------------------------
Code of Federal Regulations:

Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships. While many Federal laws and regulations place restrictions on the actions of Government personnel, their official conduct must, in addition, be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions.

3.101-2 -- Solicitation and Acceptance of Gratuities by Government Personnel.

As a rule, no Government employee may solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone who (a) has or is seeking to obtain Government business with the employee’s agency, (b) conducts activities that are regulated by the employee’s agency, or (c) has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties. Certain limited exceptions are authorized in agency regulations."

***

3.104-2 -- General.

(a) This section implements section 41 U.S.C. chapter 21, Restrictions on Obtaining and Disclosing Certain Information. Agency supplementation of 3.104, including specific definitions to identify individuals who occupy positions specified in 3.104-3(d)(1)(ii), and any clauses required by 3.104 must be approved by the senior procurement executive of the agency, unless a law establishes a higher level of approval for that agency.

(b) Agency officials are reminded that there are other statutes and regulations that deal with the same or related prohibited conduct, for example --

(1) The offer or acceptance of a bribe or gratuity is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 201, 10 U.S.C. 2207. The acceptance of a gift, under certain circumstances, is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 7353, and 5 CFR Part 2635;

(2) Contacts with an offeror during the conduct of an acquisition may constitute “seeking employment,” (see Subpart F of 5 CFR Part 2635 and 3.104(c)(2)). Government officers and employees (employees) are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 208 and 5 CFR part 2635 from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter that would affect the financial interests of any person from whom the employee is seeking employment. An employee who engages in negotiations or is otherwise seeking employment with an offeror or who has an arrangement concerning future employment with an offeror must comply with the applicable disqualification requirements of 5 CFR 2635.604 and 2635.606. The statutory prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 208 also may require an employee’s disqualification from participation in the acquisition even if the employee’s duties may not be considered “participating personally and substantially,” as this term is defined in 3.104-1;

(3) Post-employment restrictions are covered by 18 U.S.C. 207 and 5 CFR Parts 2637 and 2641, that prohibit certain activities by former Government employees, including representation of a contractor before the Government in relation to any contract or other particular matter involving specific parties on which the former employee participated personally and substantially while employed by the Government. Additional restrictions apply to certain senior Government employees and for particular matters under an employee’s official responsibility;

(4) Parts 14 and 15 place restrictions on the release of information related to procurements and other contractor information which must be protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905;

(5) Release of information both before and after award (see 3.104-4) may be prohibited by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and other laws; and

(6) Using nonpublic information to further an employee’s private interest or that of another and engaging in a financial transaction using nonpublic information are prohibited by 5 CFR 2635.703."

More than likely, you expected the FBI to have indicted her for the email scandal, even though the vast majority of legal analysts said it was unlikely. At this point, there's no reason to think this is more than political noise.

The fact that she wasn't indicted does not mean that she didn't break the law. In fact Comey listed several violations of the law both in his news conference and in Congressional testimony. A simple reading of the pertinent statutes makes it pretty plain.

I find it sad but not surprised that your standard of conduct is whether she was indicted and not whether she acted prudently, competently, responsibly, or ethically. You expect so little from your politicians.

mudbug: The fact that she wasn't indicted does not mean that she didn't break the law.

That career FBI investigators recommended against indictment is strong evidence there was no indictable offense.

mudbug: I find it sad but not surprised that your standard of conduct is whether she was indicted and not whether she acted prudently, competently, responsibly, or ethically.

If you were arguing there is an appearance of impropriety, then perhaps you might have an argument. If you said that American politics is inundated with money, then that would be a supportable claim. If your stated that the rich and connected have better access to powerful politicians, then you would be stating a fact of the human condition. But your claim is that Clinton sold favors. That would be an indictable offense.

For decades the right-wing has spent millions of dollars chasing after such an indictment, even when legal analysts don't think such an indictment is probable. When disappointed once again, the right wing echochamber cries out that someone must have gotten to Comey, even though the recommendation against indictment was the unanimous decision of career FBI investigators.

Sure. Money and politics have a close nexus that gives the rich and connected undue influence over the process. Some of that is inherent. If you know someone who knows someone, then you will have a better chance of speaking into the ear of the king. And it turns out that rich people are more likely to know someone in a position of power. On the other hand, some of that is due to the relaxation of regulations, regulations Republicans have strenuously fought.

If you wallow in truthiness, then it is practically impossible to grapple with the problem.

mudbug: I guess we shouldn't be too bothered by the fact that our Secretary of State was selling access and favors for her own benefit.

Access for donors is part-and-parcel of American politics. It's not illegal, nor is it unethical given the current system. The close nexus of money and politics is a serious issue, but that can't be addressed while pretending it is not endemic to the system. Are you advocating for more stringent regulation?

Maybe Trump is talking about the Democrat party - that if they were looking for honest, competent, law-abiding leadership, they wouldn't have voted for her in the primaries and thus would not be "allowed" to run. But asking the Democrat party to be honest is asking a lot (https://www.democrats.org/about/our-history).

Maybe the Democrat Party? I am sure instead of helping her candidacy behind the scenes and tanking Bernie, they could've...oh, I don't know...strongly suggested to her behind closed doors that this was a bad idea and that the whole of the DNC would be against it? There's nothing stopping them from doing that.

The history is rich. You might want to start with the Praetorian Guard of 193 CE. Or in American history, the backdoor election of Hayes, the end of Reconstruction, and the beginning of Jim Crow, dooming millions to generations of misery would certainly qualify. On a more venal level, arms merchants selling defective armaments during the Civil War, would be right up there. Need we go on?

Keep in mind that the efforts of the Clinton Foundation have saved thousands of lives.

Seriously do you believe that claim that the Clinton foundation is about saving lives? And you think trotting out old criminals out of history somehow justifies the Clinton crimes? You are a piece of work.

The EPA need another eight years to determine if ethanol is bad for the environment? It didn't take them even a quarter of that time to determine that Harley Davidson, through their Screaming Eagle brand, was polluting the environment. A hundred thousand motorcycles increasing horsepower by a couple percentage points does nothing to the environment. There's too much fun going on out there. We can't have that! A drop of rain in Lake Michigan. Is there a better example of big government corruption than the EPA?

re: ethanol and the EPA
I drove across Iowa and Nebraska (80 mph on I-80) last week and managed to get 23% poorer gas mileage using the ethanol fuel they promote. Corn fields in abundance and, especially in Iowa, the cornfields are "decorated" with wind turbines.

I judge the dangerous quality of a new revelation about the Clintons by how frantic the apologies get on comments threads like this one. The new Foundation revelations must really have her campaign worried.

Texan99: I judge the dangerous quality of a new revelation about the Clintons by how frantic the apologies get on comments threads like this one.

It's the same form of argument raised when the right-wing echochamber was going on about an imminent indictment of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton, gee whiz, how many times now? Say, for the so-called murder of Vince Foster.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: